and now deciding the fate of several controversial laws. they started with bill signing, supporters applaud a law legalizing same sex marriage. another grants in state tuition to illegal immigrants. both of those laws challenged by a statewide petition drive. >> would you care to sign a petition. >> tens of thousands of signatures put the laws up for a statewide vote. and gambling faces voters for the second time. should there be expanded gaming? >> and a new casino in prince george's county? three different referendums, three different fights, one chance for marylanders to have their voices heard. good evening. welcome to the fox special report your voice, your future. for the next hour we'll take an in department look at the three major referendums

facing maryland voters, we gathered a group of people from both sides of the issues and we will start with question four which would grant in-state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants. we are joined by delegate pat mcdonough behind the petition effort to put the law to a vote. and delegate sandy rosenberg a supporter of the maryland dream act. we're going to start though with the wording of the referendum. question four, establishes that individuals including undocumented immigrants are eligible to pay in-state tuition rates at community colleges in maryland provided the student meets certain conditions relating to attendance and graduation from a maryland high school, filing of income taxes, intent to apply for permanent residency and registration with a selective service system if required. make such students eligible to pay in state tuition rates at a four year public college or university if the student has first completed 60 credit hours or graduated from a community college in

maryland. provides that students qualifying for in-state tuition rates by this method will not be counted as in-state students for purposes of counting undergraduate enrollment. and extends the time in which honorably discharged veterans may qualify for in-state tuition rates. gentlemen, that is quite a question. it is wordy at the very least but just to be clear, you know, some people get in the voting booth and think what i am voting for, for or against. well a vote for delegate rosenberg would say you support in-state tuition rate force the children of undocumented workers. >> that's correct is correct. to vote for means these yoining adults would be sitting in the classroom with kids it that they have gone to school with, throughout their career, through out their lives because you must have graduated from high school in maryland, as you said, completed community college or 60 credits, and then you would be paying the same tuition that anyone else who lives in the state would be

paying. you're to the getting a grant. you're to the getting special treatment and you're to the getting a seat at the expense of someone else who is eligible for in-state tuition. >> so you say vote yes on question four. >> absolutely. >> why do you think that is the right thing to do? >> because we should be giving people the opportunity to make it in our society. these young people they are not, they didn't come here illegally, their parents came here illegally. but in addition to the requirements that i have already mentioned, they or their parents must have filed income tax returns, and in the long run, if these young men and women get a college education which they can't afford if they have to pay the out of state rate, then they're going to be-- we're going to earn that money back because they're going to be productive members of our society. >> delegate mcdonough i know you would say vote no on question 4. what is your reasoning for voting no. >> there are many reasons.

the most obvious is the they are here illegally, they are not here with lawful presence therefore they are not entitled subsidies or benefits. that's under the federal law. the federal law says you cannot aid or abet people who are not here with lawful presence. so from a legal point of view, i think that's the first objection. second objection is the amount of money that this is going to cost, the advocates for the system say that well, about 1500 will probably attend or some say a thousand. i'll go with 1,000. this is an issue that involves a calculator, not emotion of this information. the numbers are hard. one student goes through the system, community college, university of maryland, $42,000. we'll round it off at $40,000. if a 1,000 of them go through the system, that is $40 million a year that the taxpayers will have to replace because that is lost revenue. now i'll give you another example. you have four classes. when you've got the whole package in place, it then starts to cost maryland

taxpayers $160 million a year. there are 16 community colleges in the state of maryland. they are all underfunded. all of them have increased their tuitions three times in the past five years. it's a huge unfairness financially for the taxpayers of maryland. we are in debt. we have a billion dollar structural deficit. we can't afford this extra money for people who are not here lawfully. and you cannot argue with the numbers. >> well, the numbers -- >> we can't afford not to have these people become better wage earners and everybody that, the facts are very clear that if you have got a college degree, you're going to earn a lot more in this country than if you don't. so that's going to more than compensate for the lesser amount. >> the calculator works both ways. we're talking about short term costs and long-term benefits if. what about the benefit of having more educated workers. >> well, first of all, let's be honest. let's not get emotional and

say they're going to earn more money. under current law they cannot be employed. if fox 45 wanted to employ one of these people, their attorneys would advice them-- advise them it is a felony to hire an illegal immigrant and pay them a wage. >> the obama administration has as much as said that will not be enforced. a lot depends on what will occur tomorrow. >> they have not said that. technically what they have said is they have allowed for a temporary deferment for two years of a certain classification of people, some of which these folks fall noochlt but that does not create permanent residents nor does it create lawful presence. it gives you a two-year window. what employer after they have a degree is going to hire someone who has a two year presence. and there is no pathway to citizenship under the law right now for people who are here without lawful presence it doesn't exist. >> delegate, the point about these are people that can't be employed legally in this country. >> well, hopefully we're going to have a congress and a president not a president who believes in

self-deportation as at least one incarnation of candidate romney said, but we're going to have a congress and a president who addresses this problem and who recognized that people with a college education are the people we want to keep in this country so they can become -- >> i'm going to say that is elitest and when we come back i will tell you why. >> we will talk about that when when come back. we'll take a quick break. an when we return more on 9 maryland dream act with

>> welcome back to the folk 45 special vote 2012. your voice, your future, talking about question 4, the maryland dream act. we are joined by delegate pat mcdonough and delegate sandy rosenberg. before we went to break we were talking about how this issue in main really comes into play in the larger context of immigration policy in this country. and what happens in washington, what happens in the presidential election and what happens with congress. so delegate mcdonough what

if the policy in washington changes so that these people are employable once they eve a college degree. >> i don't know if the average voter should go out and vote on "what if", you know. we're not a prophet, we don't have crystal balls, we don't know what the future holds. we have to vote on the current law. we don't base this on the rule of law as what might happen. the law exists today. i can tell you that it's being challenged in court already, this deferment you are talking about by chris kovac who if mr. romney wins will probably be the next secretary of homeland security which i think is interesting. but i want to make one point that sandy brought up there are about 75,000 people who fall into this profile, this category, agewise. of that 75,000, only about a thousand to 2,000, to 3,000 are eligible for this dream act benefit, which the taxpayers are going to pay for. it is kind of elitist. now what about the other 72,000 young people in maryland who are here illegally that can't get

that benefit, that are discriminated against. they don't get an extra benefit. >> you're the last person that i would think would play the get-- engage in class warfare by saying that something is elitist. >> the truth is the truth. >> no, it's not, no, it's not. let me tell you what the truth is. helping some people is not at the expense of other people. this is not what this country is all about. >> this country is all about helping everybody. >> you will support that pros poal. >> i bet you won't, if we do something to try to improve the welfare and the well-being of the people who aren't going to college among the children of illegal immigrants i don't think i will see you casting aa dream vote. >> i will support what your friend the president said, which is this type of issue in terms of that kind of equality must be taken care of in washington d.c. should be taken care of. >> it can't be done in the-- . >> why is he filing a lawsuit against arizona. why is he filing a lawsuit. >> they have a dream act. >> that is hint-- hypocritical. >> why is he-- .

>> because it counter to the federal, the court said it was. >> delegate rosenberg, really at the heart of this i think for some families in maryland, the question that comes up, why should the children of illegal undocumented people, whatever word you choose to use, get a taxpayer benefit -- >> they're not getting a benefit, they're paying the same rate that your child is paying. >> that is taxpayer subsidize. >> the taxpayer sub sig sigh-- subsidizing for all marylanders,. >> they are to the marylanders. >> they will be paying the same rate. they are not eligible for scholarships from the state or the federal government. so they are paying the same rate. >> there are only a certain number of spots t is incredibly competitive to get not university of maryland these day. only so many spots available so these student kos potentially be taking a spot away from a resident, a u.s. resident out of state. >> okay that is correct that is correct. but we made it explicit in the bill, we made it very clear in the bill that it would not be at the expense

of another maryland resident. >> i understand that. but i u.s. resident. >> it a shell game. >> you are talking about what the loophole is here is how it works. 25% of the revenue at the university of maryland comes from out of state students. they pay that extra money that operates the school. >> that is not the number there aren't that many out of state students. to be 25% of the revenue. >> can i interrupt you. >> you did. >> go ahead. your numbers aren't right. >> my numbers are right. the problem with you in the legislature are you don't know how to count and that is what creates all the problems in this state. let me say this. >> we have a aaa bond rating. >> not for long. >> there are 27,000 students who apply, or potential students who apply at the university of maryland, as you pointed out, only 7,000 of them are accepted. there is a 16,000 dollar difference in in state and out of state tuition. now when you lose that revenue, there are only three ways to get that revenue back. the first one is you increase tuition for students.

the second one is you reduce spending at the college. the third one is you get the taxpayers to fill that hole. >> i want to get delegate rosenberg in here before we have to go to break quickly. but i know are you both ooking at numbers and maybe you see the numbers differently but do you want to respond to the numbers that the delegates points out. >> you say this is 25% of the cost for the whole system. is outlandish. this is the no the case. >> that is the number we have. >> there are a lot-- there are a lot more out of state students. >> absolutely not. you never look at the numbers that is why you create this legislation. >> i state on the budget committee for 20 years. we have a aaa rating. >> we have a billion dollar deficit because of your budget. >> a balanced budget. >> okay. >> we need to take a break. when we return our delegates final thoughts on the referendum and the maryland dream act. we'll be right back.

maryland, it's time. time for marriage equality. question 6 strengthens protections for our churches and guarantees the civil right to commit to the one you love. while there are those trying to divide us, presidents obama and clinton stand with us. pastors, business leaders, newspapers, democrats and republicans are all coming together for question 6. because it's about fairness-- treating everyone equal under the law. and who could be against that? it's oysternomics 101. you start with a u.s. senator named ben. by helping restore thousands of acres of oyster beds, he kept hundreds of oystermen on the job...

which keeps wholesalers in business... and that means more delivery companies... making deliveries to more restaurants... which hire more workers. and that means more oystermen. it's like he's out here with us. he's my friend, ben. i hope he's your friend, too. i'm ben cardin, and i approved this message. >> welcome back to the fox 45 special report, vote 2012, your voice, your future. delegate pat mcdonough and sandy rosenberg are talking about question four on your ballot, the bill to allow in state tuition for illegal immigrants. delegate mcdonough looking at a "washington post" poll t looks like according to their polls 59% of likely voters say they will vote in favor of the dream act. i know you have been fighting a battle to get this on the referendum to get this on the ballot to begin with. dow feel like it is an uphill battle at this point,

that the political will in this state is to allowing the dream act to happen. >> no i've seen other polls. those polls put it fairly close to be honest with you. but i believe it's going to be rejected. i live in a democrat community. i can't find one democrat that is going to vote for it. >> here is a question. some people look at this and say why should we be punishing the kids of these families for something their parents did or did not do. >> that's a good question. the point of the matter is though now we're punishing the taxpayers and like you pointed out earlier there is a slot and someone is going to be displaced and we're punishing a maryland young citizen. the other part about this is you mow when a lot of times when people go to community college their parents help to pay for that college or they pay for the whole thing. so who is getting the benefit if we're giving them this subsidy. the parent who came here illegally to start with. plus you're creating a magnet this state is already a sanctuary state. you can't even go to college in virginia and it's 30,000 dollars even if you are an american citizen. so they're coming here and as we create more and more

illegals, pew hispanic center, 340,000 in this state, the taxpayers are paying for it. no matter what sandy says, we're paying for. >> delegate rosenberg are we creating a haven for illegals in this state. >> the 12 other states that have similar laws have not created havens. there is no reason to think that would happen here. it's the fair thing to do. it's the right thing to do. so that these children can enjoy the benefits of a college education, after they've graduated from a maryland high school, after they've gone to community college for two years, and while they-- or their parents are filing their income taxes. those are the requirements. >> delegate mcdonough says he can't find one person that is voting for it. i would imagine you are finding the opposite. >> quite a few, quite a few. and i hope that the voters will bear that out tomorrow on election day. >> delegate sandy rosenberg, pat mcdonough thank you for coming in for this very interesting and emotional and heated discussion, maybe

i should say. >> lively. >> lively that's a good word. well, you might think it can't get much more controversial than question 4. but question 6 has gained even more attention in the state and nationally. the debate over same-sex marriage in maryland. vote 2012 when we return.

>> welcome back to the fox 45 news special vote 2012, your voice, your future. question 6 on your ballot could be the most controversial measure will you vote on on tuesday. it would legalize same-sex marriage in the state of maryland. it's calmed the civil marriage protection act. this is the wording of the referendum, establishes that maryland civil marriage law as law gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage licence, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying. protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs. affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own thee logical doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs. we are joined by derek mccoy

of the maryland marriage alliance which is opposed to the referendum, and delegate mary washington who supports same-sex marriage. thanks to both of you for being with us. >> thanks for having me. >> thank you. >> and once we have gotten through the wording, let's be clear that a vote for question 6 is a vote in favor of same-sex marriage. >> absolutely. >> it's good to clarify that because sometimes when voters get in the booth they read it and wonder how am i voting here. now that we have cleared that up. my first question, is this really an issue about civil rights or an issue about morality, i will start with you delegate washington. >> well, again, thank you, thanks for collar fiing. we are macking a really important decision on tuesday. and it's a matter of civil rights under the law, making sure that everyone is treated fairly. the law you read it very clearly, it is stating that we should be able to receive a civil licence and again that is a right that is given by a state it doesn't have anything to do with a church or any religious

faith. the only morality is that as u.s. citizens we believe under our u.s. institution that all people should be treated equally. and to that respect, i believe that this law in voting for it is consistent with that. >> mr. mccoy, civil rights or morality. >> well, i think it's a combination, to be honest. when you begin to look at it, people have deeply held faith beliefs on this issue, there is no question about that. it is titled marriage and it is to different than the marriage within the current law. the current law is what is going to change. they took out a man and a woman and replaced with with any two individuals. what we probably call there are prohibition of who can and who can't mary within that context of the law as well. those are the things we look at because we would all say is that the best, those relationships that already have level of restriction on them. and i think when you look at civil rights, many people, i have visited with a lot of people and respect the civil rights struggle but they don't necessarily equate this issue to civil rights at all. they look at it as saying it is not a civil rights issue. it is an issue about redefining marriage.

and that's what many people look at and say this is the struggle with the issue. >> one of the interesting questions that came across twitter when we did our town hall meeting someone asked what is a nonreligious reason to be opposed to same-sex marriage. >> oh, that's simple. one, government, marriage predates government. it's been around a long time. i think it served society well, benefits society incredibly. i think if you look at it quite simply, you know, marriage isn't just about with any two adults want but really about future and generations. i think when we look at fairness and equality, i believe in those principleses, i do. at the same time i think it's fair and equal and giving kids equality to be able to have a mom and a dad. and i think even though not everybody has that opportunity, we do understand in some neighborhoods, in some communities that there are high single parent households there are also fearlessness is an ep dem eck. at the same time, we look quite honestly and say marriage has really served society really well. and we think it's benefit-- beneficial and

should uphold the definition in the law. >> i want to pick up on some those points in just a minute. but this issue, first of all, of why change the whole institution of marriage. why not just have civil unions. >> well, the notion of a civil marriage, dates back only to about 1836. and since then we've always defined and have changed and he volt of the who is allowed to get married. and so it is the institution of marriage as establishing the legal relationship between two people hasn't changed. who is allowed to partake in that particular legal relationship has evolved as our notions of equality have evolved over time. so again, i beg to ask that our marylanders make sure that we understand that this is about fairness and equality and treating everyone equally. to answer your question about civil unions, separate is not equal. we've tried that many, many times. and in a number of different areas and we know to set up one set of rights and

responsibilities for one group of people based on, you know, their sex or gender or race or color or religion and then to have another set of rights and responsibilities is just not fair it doesn't work. and we shouldn't do that again when it comes to gay and lesbian couples. >> about 30 seconds left. this concept of evolving. >> well, i look at it there. we haven't evolved on marriage. we can look at the loving versus verge why case a lot of different examples. marriage has been defined between a man and woman and that is what we have known for society for quite some time. it is not an evolving issue. >> we're going to continue more. we're going to continue more in just a minute. more from derek mccoy and delegate mary washington on whether maryland voters will be the first state in the country to approve same-sex marriage when we return, to vote 2012, your voice, your

♪ ♪ we're lucky, it's not every day you find a companion as loyal as a subaru. love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru.

>> question 6 on your ballot would legalize same-sex marriage in the state of maryland while the unions are legal in several states already, the laws have always been put into effect by state legislatures or court rulings. across the country same-sex marriage has failed 32 times at the polls. will maryland be the first to pass it? derek mccoy from the maryland marriage alliance and delegate marry washington continue our discussion. we were talk bfering the break but let me just ask you, do you think maryland will be ground break on this and by popular vote approve

it. >> absolutely. maryland, we will be the first to affirm the right that everybody has access to being able to be married to the person that they love, to be able to have families and full faith and confidence in the people of the state of maryland. i know it's going to happen. so we're very excited to close out early voting today and to get ready to vote on tuesday. >> mr. mccoy you were talking in our previous segment about children. shouldn't the children of gay couples enjoy the same rights and advantages that children of heterosexual couples have, having two parents that are married? >> there is no question about it. having two people that are still loving kids, i agree. that makes alot sense. i think what we are talking about with this particular law, we are saying should we redefine marriage and should we begin to take out a man and a woman and then replace it with any individual. i think when we are looking at the con exit of the law and specifically looking at it, people have the right to be able to have a public opinion on that issuement and there's a lot of people that want to talk about this as we have already seen in

just thousands of people being engaged. the polls are packed in early voting. and this is a hot issue. besides the 65 plus million dollar gambling issue. but it's a real hot issue. i think it is one of those things where people want to vb able to have a say. and they think that is what best for society, what serves society well is that it has been proven, that p.m. mos and dads do well in having kids. and it's one of those things that are set up in our society that i think is a good thing. >> so why not let those parents be married? >> well, again, there was a civil union's bill on the table earlier. there were several different options. as a matter of fact, the maryland legislature had been very good and i think very responsible with saying what are some of the rights and benefits that need to be afforded to them. and they put a lot of those in the domestic partnership laws and they expect a couple are included in those. as a matter of fact, watching those as well, that you can go and legally get quite a few different things if you don't have anything now, you can put those things in context with the legal agreement and with the power of attorney and or with an attorney.

>> but again, this has been going on for quite-- there are well over 400 states rights and responsibilities to marriage. and to require that one group of people go out and hire an attorney and be treated again differently under a law, look at the end of the day this is about fairness. this is about equality. this is, again, i believe ultimately about the 14th amendment to the constitution, that we're all to be treated equally under the law. and in maryland defining marriage between a man and a woman was put in in 1973. so i just, the opposition keeps saying over and over again that marriage, the civil institution of marriage hasn't changed. but it has evolved to catch up with our ideas about everybody should be treated equally. we shouldn't not allow some people the rights and responsibilities of others. and we did it in 1967. we did it when we realized that black people and white people can mary. we did it when we realized that women should have the right to vote. we did 2 when the legislature decided to not